The proponents of making master’s degree the entry level for RT practice put forth several arguments to support their standpoint. For instance, they state that advanced degrees enable health professionals to adapt to the ever-changing health information and therefore relate better to the complexities presented by the therapeutic process. This is true considering that that today’s world generates voluminous medical information and hence the need for smart people to integrate it into healthcare delivery system. Besides, proponents argue that advanced degrees enable RT’s to conduct clinical research and assume leadership roles. This is true since the graduates are taught analytical skills in a master’s program which are vital in a leadership position.
Question Two
On the other hand, critics to the master’s degree level entry requirement for RT practice argue that Masters degrees are more than what is required for the profession. What the critics fail to understand is that an RT professional should get the highest level of professional mastery to deliver quality care to the patients. Secondly, critics argue that having Masters Degrees as the entry requirement for RT practice may precipitate a shortage of healthcare workers. While this argument is true to some extent, one cannot underestimate the effectiveness of a well-trained RT specialist, and therefore, in this case, it is prudent to choose quality over quantity.
Question Three
The Council on Accreditation of Parks, Recreation, Tourism and Related Professions(COAPRT) is one of the accreditation bodies in RT practice, and it has three foundation curriculum areas for the APIED process (Carter et al., 2013). Secondly, the Committee on Accreditation of Recreational Therapy Education (CARTE) provides academic accreditation to RT practitioners (Skalko, 2013). CARTE has 85 standards for RT practitioners and supports curriculum development for RT specialists. The greatest benefit of having two accreditation bodies in RT is that they can collaborate to raise industry standards for the profession. However, the two organizations may engage in unnecessary competition hence leading to a dissipation of industry standards.
Question Four
The benefits of academic accreditation are numerous. For instance, it ensures that RT practitioners have a comprehensive understanding of the concepts and principles in RT (Skalko, 2013). Besides, academic accreditation gauges a university’s level of compliance with the standards outlined by accreditation bodies and therefore guarantee that the graduates have an unrivaled professional mastery (Skalko, 2013). The academic qualification in TR ensures that the graduate has mastered the concepts in the RT field. On the other hand, CTRS ensures that the graduate has gained sufficient experience in RT. Therefore, the two credentials aim to produce an all-round RT professional with who can offer exemplary care to patients.
References
Carter, M. J., Zabriskie, R. B., Anderson, L., & Janssen, M. (2013). History of accreditation:COAPRT model. Therapeutic Recreation Journal, 47(3), 156.
Skalko, T. K. (2013). The Committee on Accreditation of Recreational Therapy Education (CARTE). Therapeutic Recreation Journal, 47(4), 244.
